1. A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
2. A person who publicly denigrates the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.
3. In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
4. Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime.

Last edited by iminhokis on Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm; edited 2 times in total

iminhokisWizards

Joined: 25 Oct 2003Posts: 3321

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:34 am Post subject:

Business Standard, India
March 17 2007 | New Delhi March

Pamuk & after

Who can confront the lies and silences that lie at the heart of everyone's lives?

Turkish writers and intellectuals have been incarcerated ever since Orhan Pamuk made his comments about Armenian-Turkish history to a Swiss reporter last November, and although he was `let off' (because of his Nobel) others have been hounded by a resurgence of xenophobic nationalism. Under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which makes `insulting Turkishness' a criminal offence, a slew of cases have been launched against them. Maybe nothing may come from them (because of EU pressure) but with the threat of retaliation always present, writers have been gagged or at least taken to self-censorship. (A Turkish-Armenian newspaper editor was shot in broad daylight in January in Istanbul for `insulting Turkishness'.) Some writers have stood up, like Elif Shafak, whose novel The Bastard of Istanbul (Viking, $25) talks about `genocidal survivors who lost their relatives at the hands of Turkish butchers in 1915'. Like Pamuk, Shafak was eventually acquitted after the court agreed that she could not be convicted on the basis of comments made by a fictional character.

The Bastard of Istanbul is a political novel. It is spun around a tale of two families - one Armenian-American (part of the Armenian diaspora in San Francisco) and the other Turkish, living in Istanbul. Both are burdened by dark secrets and historical tragedies rooted in a common Istanbul past. The heroine is Asya, a rebel born out of wedlock (hence the title) and an anarchist and a rebel. She shares an old Ottoman mansion with an extended family: her mother, three aunts, a grandmother, a step-great-grandmother and a cat, each more eccentric than the other.

Asya's counterpart is Armanousch, whose interest in her history is woken up by a series of late-night exchanges with fellow diasporans. Fired by her desire to explore her past, she travels secretly to Istanbul and lives with Asya's family. There she discovers that despite historical differences Armenians and Turks have more in common than not.

But there is one difference that separates them: the interpretation of what happened in history. Specifically, what happened between the two peoples since the massacres and deportations suffered by the Armenians at the hands of the Turks in 1915. This was perhaps the first example of what can be called ethnic cleansing or genocide - two out of three Armenians were done to death under the Ottoman rule. How did they react?

Asya explains that Armenians clung to history because `your crusade for remembrance makes you part of a group where there is a great feeling of solidarity'. But `Turks, like me, cannot be past-orientated, not because I don't care but because I don't know anything about it'. In other words, the past has been wiped out or whitewashed. Instead of telling Turkish children that their Ottoman forebears had killed one million Armenians, the facts were turned upside down: it was the Armenians who had slaughtered the Turks in far greater numbers.

Shafak tries to set the record straight. Armanousch's great-grandfather was a poet who was among the hundreds of Armenian intellectuals rounded up by the Ottoman army on April 24, 1915, in order `to get rid of the brains'. The recurring theme throughout the novel is the need for the present to come to terms with the past trauma, the longing for a firm identity amidst the rage and silences that constantly hover in the background.

Who, among us, can confront the lies and silences that lie at the heart of everyone's lives, including our own? We need to do that if only to come to terms with ourselves. We are all made up of different selves like a broomstick that needs to be tethered to be of any use.

On a different plane the novel raises a much larger question: the role of nationalist historians who see all history in terms of victories, defeats, triumphs, humiliations, their own side on the upgrade and some hated rival on the downgrade. And they do this without batting an eye-lid, without being conscious of dishonesty. Sadly, political commentators can survive almost any mistake, like astrologers, because their devoted followers don't look for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalist loyalties. This is what has happened in Turkey as it would elsewhere where nationalists take over. To paraphrase Joyce, `history is a nightmare from which we are trying to awake'.

Tens of thousands of people walked behind Hrant Dink's casket in Istanbul during his funeral on January 23, 2007. People held signs that read, "We are all Armenians" in Armenian, Kurdish and Turkish. Other signs read simply, "Katil 301" (or, 301 is the Murderer).

Arat Dink, son of murdered Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink, will be forced to appear in the Sisli Municipal Court of Istanbul on July 18, 2007.

He is being prosecuted under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which makes it illegal to "denigrate Turkishness." Article 301 was the same law that his father, Hrant Dink, was charged under shortly before his
assassination on January 19, 2007, outside the Istanbul offices of Agos,
the Armenian newspaper he founded and for which he served as
editor-in-chief.

Arat Dink, executive editor of Agos, is being tried along with Sarkis
Seropyan, the newspaper's owner, as part of the third and final case
brought against Hrant Dink prior to his death. The two journalists face up to 3 years in prison.

"Once again we have to denounce the use of Article 301 of the criminal code which is a threat to freedom of expression," wrote Reporters Without
Boarders in a statement condemning the on-going trial.

The current case was originally opened as a result of the September 2006 reprinting in Agos of a Reuters interview with Hrant Dink from July 14 of that year. In the interview, Hrant Dink refers to the Armenian Genocide.

It was specifically because of the printing of this reference that members
of the Agos staff were prosecuted. Hrant Dink was originally to be tried
along with his son and Seropyan, but the case against him was dismissed by the court due to his January assassination.

Human rights lawyer Fethiye Cetin, in an interview published in Agos on
July 6, 2007, suggested that the defense's case should highlight the
undemocratic nature of Article 301. Cetin is author of the novel Anneannem (My Grandmother), a memoir detailing her personal experience of discovering the Armenian background of her grandmother. The novel was first published in Turkey in 2004 and has had seven printings. Since the publication of her novel, Cetin has become a vocal member of the group of Turkish intellectuals engaging in discussions of Armenian-Turkish relations. In the Agos interview, Cetin suggested that in a democratic society debates and discussions with various opinions are a source of pride.

Article 301 has been considered by many to be the root cause of Hrant
Dink's assassination. The flexibility in the use of the code has seen it
used frequently in attempts to silence Turkish intellectuals, including
Nobel Prize-winning novelist Orhan Pamuk, Elif Safak, and Taner Akcam.
While others have written about the Armenian Genocide and not received any
reaction. In fact, current editor-in-chief of Agos and intellectual Etyen
Mahcupyan has published several articles on the Armenian Genocide in the Turkish newspapers Radikal and Zaman. In an interview published in Ararat magazine in 2004, Mahcupyan explained that he had written and published several series of articles on the Armenian genocide and rarely received any responses from readers, let alone government officials. In a more recent interview (printed in Der Spiegel on July 10), Mahcupyan explained that while he was not being prosecuted under Article 301 at the moment, "if it were politically desired then someone could find an old article and file charges."

While the trial of Dink and Seropyan continues, some in Turkey have
recently honored Hrant Dink. He will be posthumously awarded the "Press Freedom" prize by the Union of Journalists of Turkey, along with publisher Ragip Zarakolu and lawyer Gulcin Caylgil. The award will be given to Dink "on behalf of all the journalists, who were convicted and suffered on account of Article 301 of the Criminal Code of Turkey." The award ceremony will take place at Dolmabahce palace (constructed by the Balian family of architects in the 19th century) in Istanbul on July 24.

To support the rights of the press and freedom of discussion in Turkey,
visit the Agos website, www.agos.com.tr. On-line subscriptions to the
Armenian/English/Turkish language paper are a way to show support for
minority and human rights in the Republic of Turkey.

The Diocese continues to support the Dink family and for Agos. Its
parishioners raised funds to help the family immediately after Hrant Dink's assassination. Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate of the Eastern Diocese, traveled to Turkey to represent His Holiness Catholicos Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, at the funeral. And the St. Vartan Cathedral in New York held a special joint memorial and requiem service honoring Dink, which brought hundreds of Armenians and non-Armenians together to celebrate his memory and message.